Modeling and reasoning with qualitative comparative clinical knowledge

The number of clinical trials reports is increasing rapidly due to a large number of clinical trials being conducted; it, therefore, raises an urgent need to utilize the clinical knowledge contained in the clinical trials reports. In this paper, we focus on the qualitative knowledge instead of quantitative knowledge. More precisely, we aim to model and reason with the qualitative comparison (QC for short) relations which consider qualitatively how strongly one drug/therapy is preferred to another in a clinical point of view. To this end, first, we formalize the QC relations, introduce the notions of QC language, QC base, and QC profile; second, we propose a set of induction rules for the QC relations and provide grading interpretations for the QC bases and show how to determine whether a QC base is consistent. Furthermore, when a QC base is inconsistent, we analyze how to measure inconsistencies among QC bases, and we propose different approaches to merging multiple QC bases. Finally, a case study on lowering intraocular pressure is conducted to illustrate our approaches.

On the Problems of Mixing RCTs with Qualitative Research: The Case of the MRC Framework for the Evaluation of Complex Healthcare Interventions

In the perceived hierarchy of research designs, the results from randomized controlled trials are considered to provide the highest level of evidence. Indeed these trials have been upheld as the gold standard in research. The benefits and limitations of the randomized controlled trial as a method of evaluating the effectiveness of healthcare interventions are presented. The article then examines the different levels of complexity within healthcare interventions and the problems this poses in determining effectiveness. In an effort to provide a solution to this problem, the Medical Research Council produced a framework to assist investigators to develop and evaluate complex healthcare interventions. The framework is described with reference to an example of implementing and evaluating protocols for weaning patients in the intensive care unit. The framework is critiqued on the basis that it involves an ambiguous or contradictory ontology, which fails to articulate the relationship between the positivism of randomized controlled trials with the relativism of qualitative approaches. It is concluded that the use of realist strategies in combination with randomized controlled trials provides the most coherent solution to this quandary